IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eab/develo/22352.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Choosing between Global and Local Emission Control Strategies in Urban Transport Sector, Which way to go?

Author

Listed:
  • Sudhakar Yedla

    (Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research)

Abstract

Cities are engrossed with response strategies for the control of local pollution from transport sector. However, as the transport sector has been growing as major GHG contributor, and there is an increasing scope for investment and support from the international financial institutions, cities often get into confusion on whether to go by local emission control strategies (LEMS) or adopt GHG mitigation strategies (GEMS). This paper presents a comparison between GHG mitigation strategies and local emission control strategies and their potential in controlling non-target pollutant emissions in concurrence with their economic performance. Comparative analysis based on multiple constraint optimization model for Mumbai transport system planning for the next 20 years and incremental cost analysis had revealed that strategies targeting the mitigation of total suspended particulate matter (TSP) could also reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (as non-target emission) and vice-versa. Co-benefits of emission reduction from local emission control strategies are higher compared to that of GHG mitigation strategies. In the incremental cost analysis, both GHG mitigation strategies and local emission control strategies were found performing comparably. Thus, local emission control strategies with better emission reduction potential and also better local acceptance are more favourable than GHG mitigation strategies in long term transportation planning. Therefore, it is recommended that the development projects in urban transportation planning and management may consider local emission control strategies rather than GHG mitigation strategies. The co-benefits (CO2 reduction) of local emission control strategies would still play the attraction for international funding agencies to invest in transport sector and also for CDM opportunities.

Suggested Citation

  • Sudhakar Yedla, 2007. "Choosing between Global and Local Emission Control Strategies in Urban Transport Sector, Which way to go?," Development Economics Working Papers 22352, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:eab:develo:22352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eaber.org/node/22352
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Azar, Christian & Lindgren, Kristian & Andersson, Bjorn A., 2003. "Global energy scenarios meeting stringent CO2 constraints--cost-effective fuel choices in the transportation sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(10), pages 961-976, August.
    2. Michaelis, Laurie & Davidson, Ogunlade, 1996. "GHG mitigation in the transport sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(10-11), pages 969-984.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sudhakar Yedla, 2007. "Choosing between global and local emission control strategies in urban transport sector, which way to go?," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2007-009, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    2. Yedla, Sudhakar & Shrestha, Ram M. & Anandarajah, Gabrial, 2005. "Environmentally sustainable urban transportation--comparative analysis of local emission mitigation strategies vis-a-vis GHG mitigation strategies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 245-254, May.
    3. David Bryngelsson & Fredrik Hedenus & Daniel J. A. Johansson & Christian Azar & Stefan Wirsenius, 2017. "How Do Dietary Choices Influence the Energy-System Cost of Stabilizing the Climate?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    4. Berndes, Goran & Hansson, Julia, 2007. "Bioenergy expansion in the EU: Cost-effective climate change mitigation, employment creation and reduced dependency on imported fuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 5965-5979, December.
    5. Hellsmark, Hans & Jacobsson, Staffan, 2012. "Realising the potential of gasified biomass in the European Union—Policy challenges in moving from demonstration plants to a larger scale diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 507-518.
    6. Gupta, Monika, 2016. "Willingness to pay for carbon tax: A study of Indian road passenger transport," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 46-54.
    7. Jos#X00C9; Moreira, 2006. "Global Biomass Energy Potential," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 313-333, March.
    8. Chen, Huayi & Ma, Tieju, 2017. "Optimizing systematic technology adoption with heterogeneous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 287-296.
    9. Millinger, M. & Reichenberg, L. & Hedenus, F. & Berndes, G. & Zeyen, E. & Brown, T., 2022. "Are biofuel mandates cost-effective? - An analysis of transport fuels and biomass usage to achieve emissions targets in the European energy system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    10. Persson, Tobias A. & Azar, Christian & Lindgren, Kristian, 2006. "Allocation of CO2 emission permits--Economic incentives for emission reductions in developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(14), pages 1889-1899, September.
    11. Persson, Tobias A. & Azar, C. & Johansson, D. & Lindgren, K., 2007. "Major oil exporters may profit rather than lose, in a carbon-constrained world," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6346-6353, December.
    12. Peeters, Paul & Dubois, Ghislain, 2010. "Tourism travel under climate change mitigation constraints," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 447-457.
    13. Spalding-Fecher, Randall & Joyce, Brian & Winkler, Harald, 2017. "Climate change and hydropower in the Southern African Power Pool and Zambezi River Basin: System-wide impacts and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 84-97.
    14. Park, Young-Kwon & Yoo, Myung Lang & Lee, Hyung Won & Park, Sung Hoon & Jung, Sang-Chul & Park, Sang-Sook & Kim, Sang-Chai, 2012. "Effects of operation conditions on pyrolysis characteristics of agricultural residues," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 125-130.
    15. Chen, Huayi & Ma, Tieju, 2021. "Technology adoption and carbon emissions with dynamic trading among heterogeneous agents," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    16. Weiwei Xiong & Katsumasa Tanaka & Philippe Ciais & Daniel J. A. Johansson & Mariliis Lehtveer, 2022. "emIAM v1.0: an emulator for Integrated Assessment Models using marginal abatement cost curves," Papers 2212.12060, arXiv.org.
    17. Takeshita, Takayuki, 2012. "Assessing the co-benefits of CO2 mitigation on air pollutants emissions from road vehicles," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 225-237.
    18. Bilgili, Faik, 2012. "Linear and nonlinear TAR panel unit root analyses for solid biomass energy supply of European countries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(9), pages 6775-6781.
    19. Gül, Timur & Kypreos, Socrates & Turton, Hal & Barreto, Leonardo, 2009. "An energy-economic scenario analysis of alternative fuels for personal transport using the Global Multi-regional MARKAL model (GMM)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1423-1437.
    20. Peter Read, 2006. "Reconciling Emissions Trading with a Technology-Based Response to Potential Abrupt Climate Change," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 493-511, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Co-benefits; GHG mitigation; incremental cost analysis; local emission control; transportation planning; total suspended particulates;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eab:develo:22352. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Shiro Armstrong (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaberau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.